masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:JakePT/Sandbox/Characters
Just a test to see how well the Characters page would work as a gallery. I say pretty well, it scales for screen size, meaning wider/larger screen users won't have to deal with such narrow character sections, it's also easier to add characters, if need be. Downsides are the annoying 'Add a photo to this gallery' buttons everywhere, and, as with the existing page, a very annoying table of contents that takes up a lot of space. Using the Toc right template kinda helps, but makes it harder to conceal spoilers, and for some reason adds a big gap between the first and second galleries if the page is wide enough. JakePT 12:36, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :Saw the discusson on your talk page Jake and after examining the article, good work, but I'd have to say I like the current setup better. This puts all the images off to the left, and while that is good for the achivements page, it really doesn't work on this one, espeically when put next to the system we have now. A bit harder formatting, but it looks better IMO. I really don't see why we have to use galleries and tables for everything when the system we have works, again granted a bit harder to format but usually the people who add the pics, know what they are doing. Lancer1289 03:44, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::Honestly, that was my thinking too. I prefer the images centered, even if it does occasionally lead to odd 4-3-3-3 layouts like the ME2 squad members section. This version looks to sloppy and all over the place, due pretty much entirely to the fact that the images are all oriented left-to-right. SpartHawg948 03:51, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :::(edit conflict) I get where you're coming from. I made it all centred, if that's any better. The big plus for this system is that it scales. The current one is 4/3 pictures wide, and the rest is empty space. This makes the page much longer than it needs to be also. Here it will have as many characters on a row as you can fit.JakePT 03:55, September 13, 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Now, as for this latest iteration, where it's still a gallery, but they are centered, it has one big issue I don't like. As explained on JakePT's talk page, the reason the ME2 squad members are laid out 4-3-3-3 is becuase before that, they were 4-4-4-1, which looked like crap. IMO, the only reason to have a "row of one" is if there is only one person in that category. Otherwise, it looks kind of crappy. And the ME2 squad members section is back to having a row of one, with Zaeed all by his lonesome as the only occupant of the second row of ME2 squad members. And, as you point out, there are those "Add a photo to this gallery" buttons all over the place, and they make the page look like a colorful analogy I can't quite put here due to the language policy. Let's just say they make the page look like a sack full of smashed blank-holes. SpartHawg948 03:59, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :Edit- just want to point out, as I probably could have worded it a bit more diplomatically, the last bit of the previous post was referring solely to the gallery pic tags all over the place. Other than that, the page looks quite nice, actually. Several little tweaks and fixes over the current version that I like. There's just that one issue... I just don't want my somewhat poor choice of phrasing to cause any miscommunication. SpartHawg948 04:09, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::I still have a problem with the buttons all over the place, and those can't go away. However I really again do like the current sytstem and I don't see a need to switch. Not to mention the pics link in the current version, and I don't think you can do that on a gallery. Even if it did, I really don't see a need to switch because the current system works, and usually the only people adding to it know what they are going. And I jsut feel like I have to state this again, I don't see the need to switch to a gallery when the current stystem works just fine. Lancer1289 04:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::Addendum: Probably should have mentioned this in my previous statement but centering the images also centers that button as well. It just doens't look right to have the pics, then the button right beneath it. Lancer1289 04:36, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :::If buttons are the concern, that can easily be rectified with a change to the CSS. (Just imagine I'm Chekov running in saying "I can do that, I can do that!"). :::To see how it'd look, just add .wikia-gallery-add { display: none !important; } :::to your User:xxx/monaco.css. This will apply to all galleries though. To get it to apply to this type of gallery in particular, more (trivial) work would be required. In the interest of not boring ya'll, I figure we'll just cross that bridge if/when we get there. -- Dammej (talk) 04:49, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::Just did that and I still see the buttons. Again I really don't think that swiching systems is a good thing. I like the current one and I really don't see why we should switch. Lancer1289 04:59, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :::::Yup. I tried it too, and it's still buttons, buttons, everywhere buttons. SpartHawg948 05:02, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Whoops. Serves me right for not actually testing. Just delete the "div" from that line and it'll work. I amended it above if you're uncomfortable editing it and would prefer to copy and paste. (still haven't tested it. Is confidence in despite failures a sign of idiocy?) -- Dammej (talk) 05:05, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :::::Well, now the buttons are gone, so there's one issue taken care of... SpartHawg948 05:08, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Same here, but I did a quick comparison and this page is actually longer than the Current Character page on lower resolutions and on higher ones, although this may be because of the temp squadmate sections. Also we have to consider larger and small screen resolutions. A gallery makes the most of the space, while the current system is set and doesn’t change based on resolution. On larger resolution it creates just a line of images across the page, which looks worse than the current system. Overall I'd be against the switch because I really don't se the need to change something that has worked well and to use galleries, and tables in some cases, for everything. Lancer1289 05:20, September 13, 2010 (UTC) Update *I've managed to remove 'add photo to gallery' buttons. Turns out it's pretty simple, just add hideaddbutton="true" to the gallery tag. I suggest adding this to achievements page. *Obviously it's not much different to the current page. What I think are improvements to the current page: **Smaller images, saves space. **More per row, saves space. **No subheadings. Saves space. **Links to game articles. **Uses gallery for much easier editing. **Automatically makes square images, so no need to make dedicated character page images if the main image is a close up. **Added some more characters. This is pretty much what I think matches the categories and are also notable enough. Ones I'm still iffy on are Maelon, Ronald Taylor and Reegar. The others are all fine being on this page where they are, in my opinion. *Problems that still exist: **Poor use of space. Probably unavoidable if we're going with the image gallery layout and don't want automatic scaling (there's no 'max/min columns' to avoid single item rows). **Lack of neutral characters. **Protagonist sections, mainly for ME1 and ME2, use up a lot of space since by definition they're single item rows. :I still don't like it. The headings help people navigate, whether it be this page or another, so I really can't see the justification for their removal. It also makes editing harder because they are no longer there to edit smaller sections rather than the whole one. The pictures still don't link to the articles like they do now, only the links below do. I also like the large images current in use. Smaller images don't look as clean as the larger images currently in use. Also note, that using galleries on larger resolutions will create a line of images, rather than the current set up which is fixed. :If we are going to abandon using the Character box images, then what about images for the Character pages, don't dismiss this and keep reading. If we stop using them here, then we will have two images, one for the character template used on their respective pages, and one for this. I don't see the justification for two similar, if not the same image. I like the character box images, as they are formatted nicely and they have a purpose. I can't say no to more characters but that is going way beyond what is being talked about here. :Most of these changes seem to be for the sole purpose of "Saving space" and I really can't consider that as a good enough reason for modifying the article to have more space by using the galleries. I also don't see why we have to make the switch. Using the formatting we have now does the same thing and don't create the unnecessary space problem. In addition, we agreed on the Protagonist Sections and I don't see the need, nor any justification, for removing them. It was a good addition. :Overall, I still cannot see a reason to abandon the current system for one that "Saves Space". Remember sometimes longer is better, which I like for the Characters Article. I like the large images that are currently used and I see the small images as trying to downgrade the article for the reason of "saving space", which isn't valid enough in my eyes. I oppose the change, and again I state that I don’t see the need to use galleries and tables for everything when we have a system that works just fine. Lancer1289 16:19, September 14, 2010 (UTC) ::There seem to be a few issues I'm noticing as well. For starters, this version seems to completely disregard the ongoing discussion about changing the character page. Right now it's 6-1 in favor of adding a temporary squad members section, which is not reflected here. Next, I'm really not sure about some of the new characters who have been added, and at least one who has not been added. I'll address that one first. Urdnot Wrex is listed as an ally. Urdnot Wreav, however, is not. I can see no legitimate reason for one to be there but not the other. Wrex does not help you any more than Wreav does. The only real difference is in the form of dialogue. The way I see it, either Wreav needs to be added, or Wrex needs to be removed, and I'm leaning towards the latter. Staying in the Allies section, Kal'Reegar. I can see no real reason to include him. Certainly nowhere near as notable as any of the other allies (including Wrex this time). Sure, it's possible for him to help you on two missions. It's also possible for him to have no involvement at all, other than you telling him to stay put and keep his head down. ::On Adversaries from the first game, I question whether Balak is really worth adding, as he has nowhere near the notability or plot impact that the other adversaries do, but I understand the reasoning, i.e. that he is the antagonist of a particular DLC, so I probably wouldn't push strenuously for his removal. On the other hand, I'm not so sure about Warden Kuril, and though I initially stated my support, and beginning to wonder about Uvenk as well. Again, may or may not argue strenuously over them. I honestly haven't quite figured it out yet... SpartHawg948 19:14, September 14, 2010 (UTC) You know what, forget it, can someone even justify to me why we have a page that's just for some characters, and another page for others (the category page, for some reason it won't let me link to it here)? The whole point of a page like this is a mystery to me. Squadmates, sure, a select few adversaries and allies who are selected on some vague definition of notability? Errr, why? Trying to improve the page, it's hit me that I don't know why it exists. I've been looking at other wikis to see how they handle pages like this, and they don't. They either just have a full list of characters (sometimes just a category page, sometimes a page with a list) or have a full list and a companions/squadmate page (like the Dragon Age Wiki) for characters who serve a gameplay purpose, not just a story one. Undoubtedly someone will claim that that makes us better than them. I ask, how? I honestly can't think of an answer. JakePT 07:27, September 15, 2010 (UTC)